Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Nicole Gelinas reports in The New York Post that New York City's infamous rent control laws may soon go before the Supreme Court.

[Jim] Harmon [who owns a five-story brownstone in
Manhattan] thinks it's time for a rehearing. He sued New York state and
NYC in federal court in 2008. Though two lower courts ruled against
him, at least one Supreme Court justice -- no one knows who -- is
interested. The court recently asked the city and state to respond to
Harmon's petition. If four justices desire, the Supremes could hear the
case.

Harmon's arguments are compelling. Consider: The Fifth
Amendment says that nobody can be "deprived of ... property without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation."

Rent regulations deprive Harmon of
his property. These laws aren't like zoning laws, under which Harmon
wouldn't be able to build a munitions factory on his home, a perfectly
reasonable restriction. Instead, Harmon can't use much of his own
property for any purpose. He's a trespasser in his own brownstone. If
he doesn't want to renew a tenant's lease, it's tough luck. In fact,
Harmon has spent $30,000 in fees trying -- so far unsuccessfully -- to
vacate one apartment so that his grandchild can live there. Because
tenants in the two other regulated apartments are (like Harmon) older
than 62, if he wants "their" space, he has to find them similar
apartments at the same or lower price in the same neighborhood.

The
fact that Harmon must renew leases over and over is a violation, too,
of the Constitution's contracts clause. Rent regulation compels Harmon
to sign his name to a piece of paper every year, whether he wants to or
not.

What about due process, another constitutional protection?
The Constitution holds that laws can't be arbitrary or selective. But
that's the definition of rent regulation. The city has declared an
emergency -- but half of the city's renters get no protection from that
emergency.

Gelinas notes that, even if the case gets heard, "The Supremes could
rule narrowly, telling New York to remedy its laws." In addition, as an
opponent of zoning and other government regulation of the economy
as violations of individual rights, I think it is dangerous to concede
that it is okay for the government to deprive people of their property
so long as it is "reasonable" or (mis)treats everyone in the same way.
Since the above arguments make such concessions, I wonder whether they
might set the stage for a bad legal precedent in addition.

Nevertheless, color me cautiously optimistic that these laws could well be ruled
unconstitutional.